Poll: NBA Top 72 or Top 75

[wojoaderge]

IMO, all of our Top 75 lists should be a Top 72 right now.

[Owly]

So I guess the question is how long has the NBA existed?

So I'd ask why you think 49-50 is the start is it the name or is it the merger?

i think the NBL was the better league for two years and that can get underplayed where official records focus on BAA. But the BAA is the organization that survived (not quite the ABA merger but my understanding is it's the BAA organization taking in NBL teams) and the BAA had already taken in most of the NBL's best players, short term teams and most viable long-term franchises (I think the Hawks and Nats are the long term survivors that come with the merger, the Packers the best short term team, Schayes the big talent left - but also a lot of teams that didn't make it).

If one wanted to make an argument that 48-49 was when the organization that becomes the NBA became the big league I hear that. But first and foremost I think this is about the organization so I'd need persuading that 46-47 isn't the start of the organization or else something else a good reason the organization would/should (the latter might be easier but less relevant to IRL practicalities) mark something else.

[wojoaderge]

So I guess the question is how long has the NBA existed?

So I'd ask why you think 49-50 is the start is it the name or is it the merger?

i think the NBL was the better league for two years and that can get underplayed where official records focus on BAA. But the BAA is the organization that survived (not quite the ABA merger but my understanding is it's the BAA organization taking in NBL teams) and the BAA had already taken in most of the NBL's best players, short term teams and most viable long-term franchises (I think the Hawks and Nats are the long term survivors that come with the merger, the Packers the best short term team, Schayes the big talent left - but also a lot of teams that didn't make it).

If one wanted to make an argument that 48-49 was when the organization that becomes the NBA became the big league I hear that. But first and foremost I think this is about the organization so I'd need persuading that 46-47 isn't the start of the organization or else something else a good reason the organization would/should (the latter might be easier but less relevant to IRL practicalities) mark something else.

I definitely think it's the merger. The NBA had 10 out of 17 ex-NBL teams (as well as the 6 surviving NBL teams) when it started and only 6 that were BAA teams.

https://buffalonews.com/opinion/columnists/on-the-nba-and-the-buffalo-linked-birthday-it-refuses-to-acknowledge/article_d386ed2f-9db0-5507-8fc8-a3a181e1926f.html

https://www.wbur.org/onlyagame/2019/10/25/nba-first-game-baa-nbl

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2022/01/21/nba-history-nbl-baa/

[Owly]

So I guess the question is how long has the NBA existed?

So I'd ask why you think 49-50 is the start is it the name or is it the merger?

i think the NBL was the better league for two years and that can get underplayed where official records focus on BAA. But the BAA is the organization that survived (not quite the ABA merger but my understanding is it's the BAA organization taking in NBL teams) and the BAA had already taken in most of the NBL's best players, short term teams and most viable long-term franchises (I think the Hawks and Nats are the long term survivors that come with the merger, the Packers the best short term team, Schayes the big talent left - but also a lot of teams that didn't make it).

If one wanted to make an argument that 48-49 was when the organization that becomes the NBA became the big league I hear that. But first and foremost I think this is about the organization so I'd need persuading that 46-47 isn't the start of the organization or else something else a good reason the organization would/should (the latter might be easier but less relevant to IRL practicalities) mark something else.

I definitely think it's the merger.

What is the it in this sentence?

The NBA had 10 out of 17 ex-NBL teams (as well as the 6 surviving NBL teams) when it started and only 6 that were BAA teams.

BAA had already poached the Lakers, Royals, Pistons and Kautskys a year earlier Those teams wanted to be part of the major league operation with the bigger arenas etc..

If you are arguing for the merger I think you have argue based on the alignment immediately prior to the merger.
prior to merger BAA has
Capitols: ended during '51
Knicks: alive
Baltimore Bullets: ended '54/early into '55 season
Warriors: Alive
Celtics: Alive
Steamrollers: dies in '49 prior to merger

Royals (later Kings): Alive
Lakers: (alive)
Stags: ended '50
Bombers: ended '50
Pistons: Alive
Jets: dies in '49 prior to merger.
So 10 of those teams make it to the merger.

by 55-56 the NBA has 8 teams. 6 of them were in the BAA when that name ended.

Do the same with the NBL and you see a bunch of teams that quickly fold, try to reform a version of their old league (NBPL, failed to reach it's first postseason), then fold. At that point letting them join and fail was easier than continue fighting or trying to figure out and coax the few viable teams left. Per above the Nats and (Black)Hawks survive (and fwiw, neither in their original market, BAA's Knicks and Celtics remain in theirs).

If you look at the earlier dates as I say NBL was the more talented league, but the BAA had already taken most of the best of it and by the merger was, as best I can tell, eating it up and spitting a bunch of it out.

Some of the arguments offered in the articles are flawed "Whether it was a merger or, as the NBA now claims, merely a name change?". It can be called a merger and not reset the more powerful organization's timeline (see ABA merger). The name shows it's "a merger of equals" ... or that now Toronto have gone Podoloff is happy with the major league convention of starting with "National ...", or it's a nice opportunity for a rebrand and some publicity or ...

Is the NBL important and underrecognized. Yes. By the time of the merger, as best I can tell, the power and the underlying organization was with the BAA (a bunch of the NBL teams I think went back to the final NBL commission Doxie Moore and the NBPL, that league quickly died).

[wojoaderge]

What is the it in this sentence?

The "it" is my answer between the name change or the merger

The NBA had 10 out of 17 ex-NBL teams (as well as the 6 surviving NBL teams) when it started and only 6 that were BAA teams.
BAA had already poached the Lakers, Royals, Pistons and Kautskys a year earlier Those teams wanted to be part of the major league operation with the bigger arenas etc..

If you are arguing for the merger I think you have argue based on the alignment immediately prior to the merger.
prior to merger BAA has
Capitols: ended during '51
Knicks: alive
Baltimore Bullets: ended '54/early into '55 season
Warriors: Alive
Celtics: Alive
Steamrollers: dies in '49 prior to merger

Royals (later Kings): Alive
Lakers: (alive)
Stags: ended '50
Bombers: ended '50
Pistons: Alive
Jets: dies in '49 prior to merger.
So 10 of those teams make it to the merger.

by 55-56 the NBA has 8 teams. 6 of them were in the BAA when that name ended.

Do the same with the NBL and you see a bunch of teams that quickly fold, try to reform a version of their old league (NBPL, failed to reach it's first postseason), then fold. At that point letting them join and fail was easier than continue fighting or trying to figure out and coax the few viable teams left. Per above the Nats and (Black)Hawks survive (and fwiw, neither in their original market, BAA's Knicks and Celtics remain in theirs).

If you look at the earlier dates as I say NBL was the more talented league, but the BAA had already taken most of the best of it and by the merger was, as best I can tell, eating it up and spitting a bunch of it out.

Some of the arguments offered in the articles are flawed "Whether it was a merger or, as the NBA now claims, merely a name change?". It can be called a merger and not reset the more powerful organization's timeline (see ABA merger). The name shows it's "a merger of equals" ... or that now Toronto have gone Podoloff is happy with the major league convention of starting with "National ...", or it's a nice opportunity for a rebrand and some publicity or ...

Is the NBL important and underrecognized. Yes. By the time of the merger, as best I can tell, the power and the underlying organization was with the BAA (a bunch of the NBL teams I think went back to the final NBL commission Doxie Moore and the NBPL, that league quickly died).

What are the flaws in the arguments? Why does "the more powerful organization" get to control the historical narrative? In my opinion, the subsequent fates of any of the 17 original NBA teams are irrelevant. Nobody knew what was going to happen to them in the summer of 1949. What they did know is everyone wanted the talent wars to end. The NBL wasn't about to fold. The NBL teams certainly didn't think they were joining the BAA, and nobody in the press though so either. More info here: http://www.apbr.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1910

[Owly]

What is the it in this sentence?

The "it" is my answer between the name change or the merger

The NBA had 10 out of 17 ex-NBL teams (as well as the 6 surviving NBL teams) when it started and only 6 that were BAA teams.
BAA had already poached the Lakers, Royals, Pistons and Kautskys a year earlier Those teams wanted to be part of the major league operation with the bigger arenas etc..

If you are arguing for the merger I think you have argue based on the alignment immediately prior to the merger.
prior to merger BAA has
Capitols: ended during '51
Knicks: alive
Baltimore Bullets: ended '54/early into '55 season
Warriors: Alive
Celtics: Alive
Steamrollers: dies in '49 prior to merger

Royals (later Kings): Alive
Lakers: (alive)
Stags: ended '50
Bombers: ended '50
Pistons: Alive
Jets: dies in '49 prior to merger.
So 10 of those teams make it to the merger.

by 55-56 the NBA has 8 teams. 6 of them were in the BAA when that name ended.

Do the same with the NBL and you see a bunch of teams that quickly fold, try to reform a version of their old league (NBPL, failed to reach it's first postseason), then fold. At that point letting them join and fail was easier than continue fighting or trying to figure out and coax the few viable teams left. Per above the Nats and (Black)Hawks survive (and fwiw, neither in their original market, BAA's Knicks and Celtics remain in theirs).

If you look at the earlier dates as I say NBL was the more talented league, but the BAA had already taken most of the best of it and by the merger was, as best I can tell, eating it up and spitting a bunch of it out.

Some of the arguments offered in the articles are flawed "Whether it was a merger or, as the NBA now claims, merely a name change?". It can be called a merger and not reset the more powerful organization's timeline (see ABA merger). The name shows it's "a merger of equals" ... or that now Toronto have gone Podoloff is happy with the major league convention of starting with "National ...", or it's a nice opportunity for a rebrand and some publicity or ...

Is the NBL important and underrecognized. Yes. By the time of the merger, as best I can tell, the power and the underlying organization was with the BAA (a bunch of the NBL teams I think went back to the final NBL commission Doxie Moore and the NBPL, that league quickly died).

What are the flaws in the arguments? Why does "the more powerful organization" get to control the historical narrative? In my opinion, the subsequent fates of any of the 17 original NBA teams are irrelevant. Nobody knew what was going to happen to them in the summer of 1949. What they did know is everyone wanted the talent wars to end. The NBL wasn't about to fold. The NBL teams certainly didn't think they were joining the BAA, and nobody in the press though so either. More info here: http://www.apbr.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1910

Thanks regarding "it" wouldn't have read it that way because "I think" threw me off.

I would suggest that you're assuming that the powerful organization used that to control the narrative. Now they very well could have. But even leaving aside them being able to control the narrative is an indication that the power base after the merger was the BAA organization ... my argument is not about the narrative it's that BAA organization roots remained (e.g. BAA's commissioner, BAA's office) and that happened because they were the larger organization.

24 Seconds (which is cited in the Harris article) has it thus

“It was a victory of staggering proportions. All of a sudden almost on the eve of the 1948-49 season, the very players whose absence had become a reason to downgrade the B.A.A. were in it: Mikan, Pollar, Bob Davies and Arnie Risen of Rochester, a half-dozen lesser but visible lights.
In effect the National League was dead, then and there …”

The gist follows that NBL still had some players but “the names of the cites were enough to brand it as inescapably minor league.”
As partially quoted in the Harris article “The inevitable formal merger with the remnants of the National league took place.” And “By taking in the National League survivors”. He says it “altered it’s own nature” in the short term … but even so it is it’s own nature that is being changed because it is the league taking in the NBL.

But the early taking in of so many smaller teams was “a conglomeration whose instability was obvious to the most casual fan”. It continues adding, “two other teams, Denver and Waterloo, [who] had started the 1948-49 season in the National League but not finished it.” This seems far from clear. Though they played a couple less games than the best teams (the top 2 in each conference playing 64) this could as easily be put down to the NBL’s minor league status and scheduling as them ceasing to be going concerns.
“In short what the the B.A.A. had done was to invite the dying remnants of the National league to join in their own financial burial. It would have be more forthright (but perhaps sticky legally, on anti-trust grounds) to refuse to admit them. On the other hand, it is no one’s right or duty to refuse to adult competent business men a chance to lose money if they want to; that was the view of the B.A.A. That the end could only be further shaking down to stronger franchises, no one really doubted.”

It is of course easy to be wise after the fact, history is uncertain but … regarding “nobody knew what was going to happen to them in the summer of 1949” the suggestion is that the BAA was happy to eliminate unstructured wage competition (controlled by things like draft and a rookie max in the BAA) and take in the remaining talents, confident that most of the NBL teams (from ’49) couldn’t survive. The speed with which many merger NBL teams died or left (and then died) helps make such a view look plausible and correct.

I can't speak to the technicalities and it was of course called a merger (Nelson's quotes are interesting here). But I can certainly see why the BAA might for good relations and for PR (and perhaps legal reasons?), well, their the league office might promote the new league/merger aspect whilst convinced that the NBL teams would not survive.

I don't always go with the official line (I don't think in general that it makes sense to call the New Orleans Hornets a new franchise that happened to have roster, ownership continuity with the Charlotte Hornets). But I'd need persuading that the BAA wasn't picking off the remains of the minor league or I guess a clear comprehensive statement that the NBA is wrong on it's ancestry and that the NBA was a new legal entity with a break from the prior BAA organization.

I could be being influenced by having read Koppett more and earlier than Nelson in terms of shaping initial position.